Author
|
Topic: Kickstarter? (Read 31603 times)
|
|
|
oldlaptop
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 337
|
The CC licenses (or GPL, BSD, etc) are all just as legally binding as any other license - assuming the actual copyright holder released the work in question. If a work has been (genuinely) released under some free(ish) license, there is *no reason* (other than personal courtesy, perhaps...) you would need to so much as ask to use it, much less pay. Now, if some joker forged it (not an issue in the case of UQM) that's entirely different.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwayne
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 189
|
My uneducated guess would be that when someone forge a false license claim, the weight of legal responsibility is on him/her. So if the CC license on UQM content is just some prank, it's the worst kind of prank because it only backfires with costly repercussions, without -- say -- the P6014 team being responsible because we only followed the (fake) license terms in good faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dathinvaderzim
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 71
|
Fall for what? [...] Are you arguing that the owner has no power over what they have created just because they posted some random thing on an unofficial website (kind of reminds me of something else...)
Erm, yeah, that's kind of how it works. It's kind of, you know, a legally binding agreement. They have already released the work and agreed to allow you (and anyone else) to use the work under the terms set by the respective license. So if that's true, I should be able to upload someone else's song like Eminem or Lady-Gaga under a CC license and other people would be able to use it for free, just because some website says so. Are you really that dim?
I should be asking you that if you think that's true...
My uneducated guess would be that when someone forge a false license claim, the weight of legal responsibility is on him/her. So if the CC license on UQM content is just some prank, it's the worst kind of prank because it only backfires with costly repercussions, without -- say -- the P6014 team being responsible because we only followed the (fake) license terms in good faith.
Even if a majority of the things are legal, there could easily be some things that aren't, like maybe the game got a few pieces of data from a different company who's employee was in the credits, etc.
Regardless, its still logical to ask around to make sure about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dathinvaderzim
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 71
|
Even if a majority of the things are legal, there could easily be some things that aren't, like maybe the game got a few pieces of data from a different company who's employee was in the credits, etc.
Regardless, its still logical to ask around to make sure about everything.
The thing is that Accolade/TFB *did* all that well over a decade ago. UQM has operated under the current licensing system for about ten years now, with TFB's explicit permission and encouragement, under the GPL and CC-BY-SA-NC. If there were legal issues, we'd know already.
Do you have a link to a website with all of the copyright of all of the files in the game? Because theoretically, you even if the coding was copyrighted in some way, some loopholes could still consider your altercations not the original coding as long as you re-make it yourself, because you can't really copyright physics, and if you happen to be using the same program to legally make the game, then I guess tough. It can go bad on either end, whether its the copyrighted side or the supposedly completely free in every way side. There's many loop-holes and the guys that created this series might be mad that someone else is making it for them and try to find a loop-hole to get it taken down...
So if that's true, I should be able to upload someone else's song like Eminem or Lady-Gaga under a CC license and other people would be able to use it for free, just because some website says so.
Are you really that dim? I should be asking you that if you think that's true... I don't. Any idiot can recognize that there's a HUGE difference between content being licensed by its creator and content being "licensed" illegally by someone else without the creator's permission. You can't though, apparently, given that you were saying that it is exactly the same thing for the author of a work to license something under a CC license and for you to "license" one of Eminem's songs under a CC license.
So are you saying that if the artist does not give permission, the CC license doesn't apply?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 05:43:19 am by dathinvaderzim »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
Are you really that dim?
I should be asking you that if you think that's true... I don't. Any idiot can recognize that there's a HUGE difference between content being licensed by its creator and content being "licensed" illegally by someone else without the creator's permission. You can't though, apparently, given that you were saying that it is exactly the same thing for the author of a work to license something under a CC license and for you to "license" one of Eminem's songs under a CC license. So are you saying that if the artist does not give permission, the CC license doesn't apply?
Are you deceptive or just stupid? An infant could understand this simple concept. The CC license does apply if it was applied legally. It only fails to apply if it was originally applied by someone other than the copyright owner without the copyright owner's permission. If you actually want to learn how copyright works, do some research or ask a lawyer and stop pretending you know already.
Do you have a link to a website with all of the copyright of all of the files in the game? Because theoretically, you even if the coding was copyrighted in some way, some loopholes could still consider your altercations not the original coding as long as you re-make it yourself, because you can't really copyright physics, and if you happen to be using the same program to legally make the game, then I guess tough. It can go bad on either end, whether its the copyrighted side or the supposedly completely free in every way side. There's many loop-holes and the guys that created this series might be mad that someone else is making it for them and try to find a loop-hole to get it taken down...
Physics are an idea, not an expression. They can't be copyrighted. There's no loopholes in the copyright of the UQM source code either. It's licensed under the GNU General Public License, clear and simple. If there are any loopholes, it's in the GPL, and good luck finding one. You'll need a professional lawyer, by the way, and he'll probably tell you, "Nope, I see no exploitable loopholes here." Being able to completely re-make the engine is not a "loophole". Are you a programmer? I get the feeling you're not. Do you have any idea how much work it is to re-do everything from scratch, especially for something as big as SC2? Try looking up Netscape 6. Completely re-writing the source from scratch pretty much killed Netscape. Now, games are a bit different since you usually re-write quite a lot anyway (since you don't just make mods of existing games all day), but it gives an idea of how silly it is to call the ability to start coding from scratch a "loophole".
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 01:47:55 pm by onpon4 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
dathinvaderzim
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 71
|
Most CC licenses aren't a formal contract, it only applies as long as the creator wants. It's not "oh no, I issued it on some random website under an unofficial CC license one time, now I will never get it back!!!". It's not even that way with many real contracts. If people involved in making the star control series don't want this project to happen without some kind of compensation, it would be wise to not challenge them and take it to court.
What do you think happens if suddenly the creators find out about this project and then takes the coding off the unofficial license because they want to do it themselves? DO you think just because it "use" to be under some unofficial license that they are powerless?
It is a lot of work to do everything from scratch, that's one of the main issues when working with a programmer since some things just take too much time. Also, I didn't say that there definitely were loopholes, but neither of us are lawyers, and the companies involved probably have way more resources.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 02:42:34 am by dathinvaderzim »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
First off, learn how to quote.
Second of all, you are severely misinformed - see what Creative Commons has to say about revoking the license:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F
Short version: You can decide to stop offering it CC, but anyone who got it CC is not bound by any new restrictions you choose to put on it, so long as they don't mind following the restrictions of the CC license.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
dathinvaderzim
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 71
|
First off, learn how to quote. Second of all, you are severely misinformed - see what Creative Commons has to say about revoking the license: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3FShort version: You can decide to stop offering it CC, but anyone who got it CC is not bound by any new restrictions you choose to put on it, so long as they don't mind following the restrictions of the CC license.
neither of us are lawyers
Not a particularly useful statement when just about everything you're saying is thoroughly refuted on the sites of the creators of these licenses, namely the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons. In FAQs, for crying out loud.
I don't know what to tell you guys, there's some emails from creators of music that say otherwise. It doesn't really make sense that the creator would have no control over it, especially because it's not a formal contract with any signature.
I'll try asking a lawyer I do know, just to make sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwayne
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 189
|
A guess of mine is that nowadays written signatures can be replaced by registration data, as long as it's trackable and can be used as evidence in a court case.
CC I think is not just not a formal contract, it's not a contract at all. Yet still it's a viable legal expression and everyone making a legal expression is personally responsible for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valos Cor
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 154
|
I don't have a lot of time right now but...
Dude, you can't just suddenly post and act all rude by demanding respect because you have experience in game design, or know how this works. If you want higher respect than other people get because you're a developer, then EARN it. It's not like these guys ignore everyone they don't revere, but seriously, to come in and say "I know what you possibly cannot know via Google" isn't grounds for respect. A lot of people know what cannot be found by Google, and Google also knows a lot. I'm sure a lot of what you learned can be found SOMEWHERE on the World Wide Web. To call Human Head for verification?
"Human Head dudes, there's this guy that says he works for you, he calls himself dathinvaderzim. Do ya'll know him?"
"Uh...no."
"Oh, okay."
Even if you told us a name, who's to say that that dude isn't in Antarctica feasting on roasted lichen and you're just a fake?
Also, you may have heard otherwise from the emails of creators of music,but that's all that it is. An email. That says "I want you to pay me first." It has no legal power if the author has released it to the public already.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm the kind of person that uses Linux and seems to be a very literate adult but has no idea how to do anything code-wise beyond basic stuff.(such as su -<password> yum install uqm) Except I didn't install UQM that way...I used Add/Remove Software...
|
|
|
|
